Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[greyman42]

Part of me does wonder if this spike is mainly driven by Schools and Students, and would have settled down naturally on it's own?

I thought it was a given that the spike was caused by students going back to university.

 

[Domh245]

Part of me does wonder if this spike is mainly driven by Schools and Students, and would have settled down naturally on it's own?

When you have individual universities reporting hundreds of detected infections a day, I think it's highly likely that they've caused a blip in the number. There'll be some 'feed-through' from students going on to cause community infections but after this initial wave of reporting numbers will have dropped considerably, at least in places that are otherwise relatively infection free (eg Bristol/Bath/Exeter)

 

[johnnychips]

^ Are universities testing everyone then? I was under the impression that the system was under stress a couple of weeks ago and you shouldn’t apply for a test unless you were vulnerable or showed definite symptoms. Yet there have been reports that many students are asymptomatic.

 

[Domh245]

^ Are universities testing everyone then? I was under the impression that the system was under stress a couple of weeks ago and you shouldn’t apply for a test unless you were vulnerable or showed definite symptoms. Yet there have been reports that many students are asymptomatic.

Some universities carried out private testing, in other cases it is one (or more) asymptomatic cases that then lead to contacts being traced and tested

 

[Jamesrob637]

The week of 16th March Leeds station was absolutely dead - in the early evening, when it would normally be pretty busy, numbers were at the sort of levels normally seen at midnight on a wet Tuesday in February.

The final higher tier football matches with spectators took place on or the days after Saturday the 7th of March. Leeds station was rammed around 5-6pm that day as Huddersfield had been playing the CL champions at Elland Road (believe Leeds won 2-1)

Lower leagues could still admit spectators for another week when Stockport County played Maidenhead on Saturday the 14th of March. I believe the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid match took place amid much controversy on Tuesday the 10th of March, and the Cheltenham Gold Cup from Tuesday the 10th until Friday the 13th. It's rumoured that this latter led to some early COVID deaths in late-March.

 

[backontrack]

I said a second lockdown was inevitable back in September.

...I think I'm going to be vindicated.

"Circuit breaker" it is.

 

[yorkie]

I said a second lockdown was inevitable back in September.

...I think I'm going to be vindicated.

"Circuit breaker" it is.

How long would a "circuit breaker" need to be to achieve its aim?

Indeed, what is the aim?

And what next, after reopening?

 

[DB]

How long would a "circuit breaker" need to be to achieve its aim?

Indeed, what is the aim?

And what next, after reopening?

After reopening? Well, give it a few weeks and then close again of course!

 

[bramling]

How long would a "circuit breaker" need to be to achieve its aim?

Indeed, what is the aim?

And what next, after reopening?

Personally I’m coming to the view that we might as well do it. Not because I think it will be in any way helpful or a good idea, but because it’s clearly going to happen so better to get on with it now than go through this torture which we’re going to otherwise be subject to over the next few days or couple of weeks.

Boris is meanwhile too busy playing politics with Sadiq Khan and trying to punish London for voting in particular ways such as expanding the congestion charge, which I think will be a gross miscalculation as this will infuriate many suburban and Home Counties Conservative voters.

This country has well and truly lost the plot now, just as we think this week can’t get any more unhinged they go and do something worse! Last one out of Britain turn off the lights...

 

[ainsworth74]

Indeed, what is the aim?

Do what they were supposed to do during the first lockdown. Get a track and trace system in place that can actually track and trace people effectively! Alongside a testing system that can test all the people that need testing! Rather than what they actually did which seems to have been hand out bumper contracts to the usual private sector conglomerates and/or their mates which has lead to a complete shambles in both (but especially track and trace) whilst telling us all that the whole thing is "world beating" (if it was world beating we wouldn't be even having the conversation about locking down because we'd be in control of the outbreaks that are happening) and that anyone who suggests otherwise is attacking the NHS (it's not run by the NHS for the most part) and needs to stop spreading division and playing politics (asking questions and raising concerns is, of course, neither).

That won't happen, of course, so I assume the aim would be to appear like Boris is in control? Or something? God knows.

 

[takno]

Do what they were supposed to do during the first lockdown. Get a track and trace system in place that can actually track and trace people effectively! Alongside a testing system that can test all the people that need testing! Rather than what they actually did which seems to have been hand out bumper contracts to the usual private sector conglomerates and/or their mates which has lead to a complete shambles in both (but especially track and trace) whilst telling us all that the whole thing is "world beating" (if it was world beating we wouldn't be even having the conversation about locking down because we'd be in control of the outbreaks that are happening) and that anyone who suggests otherwise is attacking the NHS (it's not run by the NHS for the most part) and needs to stop spreading division and playing politics (asking questions and raising concerns is, of course, neither).

That won't happen, of course, so I assume the aim would be to appear like Boris is in control? Or something? God knows.

To be completely fair we do have one of the highest testing rates in Europe. Personally I'd rather they made that a lot worse - all the testing they're doing is clearly only making them worry more.

 

[HSTEd]

Do what they were supposed to do during the first lockdown. Get a track and trace system in place that can actually track and trace people effectively!

Unfortunately even the German system is not effective enough to keep the disease contained.

It cannot materially effect the outcome, all it does is buy a handful more weeks.

 

[ainsworth74]

To be completely fair we do have one of the highest testing rates in Europe. Personally I'd rather they made that a lot worse - all the testing they're doing is clearly only making them worry more.

I will certainly grant them that. Though it was rendered a shambles when no-one seemed to spot that there might be a surge in demand when the schools went back let alone then putting someone who is woefully under qualified in charge.

But you can do all the testing in the testing in the world but if there isn't a robust track and trace system you still won't get things under control. Especially if you also don't make it affordable for people who cannot work from home to then self-isolate.

 

[initiation]

Unfortunately even the German system is not effective enough to keep the disease contained.

It cannot materially effect the outcome, all it does is buy a handful more weeks.

Exactly. How a system like that is meant to work when a significant proportion of positives are asymptomatic I don't know.

 

[Dent]

Do what they were supposed to do during the first lockdown. Get a track and trace system in place that can actually track and trace people effectively! Alongside a testing system that can test all the people that need testing!

It's not clear exactly how anything being proposed would contribute to any of those aims, it looks like a complete non sequitur.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately even the German system is not effective enough to keep the disease contained.

It cannot materially effect the outcome, all it does is buy a handful more weeks.

Indeed the virus cannot be contained; locking down just delays the inevitable.

It took several weeks in the initial lockdown before cases actually started to decline, yet some people now falsely claim two weeks will be enough to get cases to decline!

And cases continued to decline even after we unlocked... because of the weather conditions at the time.

Czech Republic were very successful early on; so successful in fact that they now have built up very little immunity, meaning they are now being hit much harder than we are.

The lockdown fanatics have no end game.... Other than waiting indefinitely for however long it takes to approve and roll out a vaccine. Can we survive the immense strain on mental health, the economy and destruction of livelihoods for that long?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

Exactly. How a system like that is meant to work when a significant proportion of positives are asymptomatic I don't know.

The lockdown fanatics don't like to admit that the majority of infections are asymptomatic, as it destroys their argument.

 

[Richard Scott]

I will certainly grant them that. Though it was rendered a shambles when no-one seemed to spot that there might be a surge in demand when the schools went back let alone then putting someone who is woefully under qualified in charge.

But you can do all the testing in the testing in the world but if there isn't a robust track and trace system you still won't get things under control. Especially if you also don't make it affordable for people who cannot work from home to then self-isolate.

You'll never get it under control. It's out of our hands until majority of population had it or this miracle vaccine comes along. Until then this idea that we can control the virus is just wishful thinking, which part of the past seven months doesn't show the politicians that? It's better to let it spread in a controlled way than panic because 20,000 a day are testing positive. In reality that's neither here nor there when almost all will recover with no medical attention. I know someone will come along and say about overloading health service etc, but seems that NHS is still functioning at current rate of spread.

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps I should clarify. I do not mean control as in zero cases. I mean control as in ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected, the NHS is in no danger of being overwhelmed either locally or nationally and that life and the economy can continue with only sensible precautions rather than shutting it all down again like we currently are in the middle of doing.

 

[Richard Scott]

Perhaps I should clarify. I do not mean control as in zero cases. I mean control as in ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected, the NHS is in no danger of being overwhelmed either locally or nationally and that life and the economy can continue with only sensible precautions rather than shutting it all down again like we currently are in the middle of doing.

So managing it, not controlling it?

 

[ainsworth74]

So managing it, not controlling it?

If you prefer that term then yes. Personally I'd consider controlling to be the better word but I'm not going to expend much energy on arguing about it

 

[Yew]

If you prefer that term then yes. Personally I'd consider controlling to be the better word but I'm not going to expend much energy on arguing about it

Unfortunately, I think Boris has dibs on control.

 

[yorkie]

I hope that we can get an idea of how many people have been exposed to the virus; any measures based on antibodies can be disregarded, given that T-cells play a major role asymptomatic or mild cases (which is by far the majority), and a strong antibody response is more associated with more severe cases.

A peer reviewed paper recently published by the WHO has made some interesting estimates regarding how many people may have been infected and what the infection fatality rate may be:

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

... based on the currently available data, one may project that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower.

Of course, those who want to promote lockdowns won't welcome this, as it erodes their argument.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

People on the internet don't have the responsibility of making decisions that will affect the entire population and where any destructive consequences of those decisions will come back to them. Therefore, people on the internet can search for and interpret figures how they like to align with their opinion with no risk of comeback.

That's an odd thing to suggest; I am sure those who have such responsibilities do have internet access (or are "on the internet" as you word it).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The lockdown fanatics don't like to admit that the majority of infections are asymptomatic, as it destroys their argument.

I think that's slightly fallacious. I know what you mean, but the other side of that is that it means the only way to control it is that NOBODY leaves their house, i.e. a strict lockdown, as you don't know who's infected and who isn't. The only other way to any reasonable level of accuracy is to do very frequent whole-population testing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But you can do all the testing in the testing in the world but if there isn't a robust track and trace system you still won't get things under control. Especially if you also don't make it affordable for people who cannot work from home to then self-isolate.

Bingo. The issue is that people can't afford to isolate for two weeks, not on SSP of £90, so they don't. They don't download the app, they don't answer the phone, because they won't have to isolate if they don't engage. I can't blame them.

The same applies to employers. There was a major superspreader event during lockdown at the Husqvarna factory in Newton Aycliffe because Husqvarna couldn't afford to close the plant and so pressurised people to come to work, and people went to work because they couldn't afford not to.

My dad, a highly skilled machinist in Yorkshire, has been at work the whole time- even during lockdown- despite being in a high risk category.

If people can't afford to stay at home then lockdowns are pointless.

FWIW I think restrictions in excess of the tier system are required in the UK. But if financial protection was in place for people quarantining due to contact tracing/positive tests, and stronger sanctions were in place for people breaking quarantine, I think that would be enough alongside restrictions on gathering.

 

[Domh245]

it means the only way to control it is that NOBODY leaves their house, i.e. a strict lockdown, as you don't know who's infected and who isn't. The only other way to any reasonable level of accuracy is to do very frequent whole-population testing.

"Our only options are to weld everyone into their house, or achieve the logistically impossible" - it's almost like there needs to be some alternative strategy that we ought to look at..

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bingo. The issue is that people can't afford to isolate for two weeks, not on SSP of £90, so they don't. They don't download the app, they don't answer the phone, because they won't have to isolate if they don't engage. I can't blame them.

Ping, got it in one.

It would work better if anyone who is asked to isolate, either because of a positive test or because of T&T, receives as a minimum full pay for doing so (possibly even add a £100 bonus or something?), but conditional on not being caught out of the home; if they are caught, even once, both the fine and forfeit of that money would occur.

Self-employed people should receive their typical two-week income, regardless of what mechanism they would usually use for drawing it. I'm usually all for the idea that if people who run through a limited company avoid tax by drawing dividends instead of a salary then they should lose out on the benefit from that tax, but in this case it causes them not to isolate so should be ignored, with a warning of "next time we won't be so nice, we're doing it for others, not you".

Additionally, there needs to be something put in place to deliver emergency two-week food parcels to such people without them having to ask. It would perhaps help ease this if the app collected details of allergies.

 

[Yew]

Ping, got it in one.

It would work better if anyone who is asked to isolate, either because of a positive test or because of T&T, receives as a minimum full pay for doing so (possibly even add a £100 bonus or something?), but conditional on not being caught out of the home; if they are caught, even once, both the fine and forfeit of that money would occur.

I would also suggest allowing individual outdoor excercise, the transmission risk is so small that it's not worth fussing about, and would make things a lot more tolerable for may people .

 

[brad465]

I would also suggest allowing individual outdoor excercise, the transmission risk is so small that it's not worth fussing about, and would make things a lot more tolerable for may people .

From memory that was policy when the rules of a whole household isolating for 14 days was brought in a week before lockdown; why this isn't anymore isn't clear i don't think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From memory that was policy when the rules of a whole household isolating for 14 days was brought in a week before lockdown; why this isn't anymore isn't clear i don't think.

Because people aren't capable of declining a chat with a friend or popping into a shop in that situation.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It would work better if anyone who is asked to isolate, either because of a positive test or because of T&T, receives as a minimum full pay for doing so (possibly even add a £100 bonus or something?), but conditional on not being caught out of the home.

I'm not sure adding a bonus is a good idea. A lot of people, especially lower earners, will then likely be deliberately trying to get infected.